CDZ Free Speech in the Social Media Era

[WelfareQueen]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

The entire basis of free speech is accepting the right of those to express ideas you do not like. Social media is squashing speech they do not like. It is totalitarian and deeply anti American.

Totally agree.

BUT...social media is also a privately owned product.

How do you reconcile that?

And where, if at all, do you draw any lines?

The left is terrified of Trump. That is what this is about. They want to silence him and his supporters. They are too stupid to realize that only makes the situation worse.

With all due respect, I think you don’t really see it, at least my perspective as a leftist.

We aren’t terrified of Trump. We are terrified of what he is allowed/enabled to get away with, the way it becomes normalized and rationalizes to the point where an attempted violent overthrow is seen as justified.

I have been reading articles about some of the people involved, and a recurrent theme is a deeply held belief in QAnon...and, I some cases like Ashley Babbit, a deeply troubled personal life. It is a belief that doesn’t just dislike the opposing ideology, but demonizes the people into reservoirs of evil that must be not only defeated but anhilated. That, frankly is frightening.

The difference between someone like Trump and someone like you or me, is his words carry ENORMOUS weight. He doesn’t ever speak as Donald Trump, but as the POTUS (as does any president). And as long president, he can speak as a private citizen because he isn’t.

I do not like a lot of Anifa's speech or BLM for that matter, but I would never advocate attempting to silence them.

I agree, and I feel similar for like Westboro Baptist’s, various independent RW militias, Proud Boys even Nazis. But what happens if tbey are actively planning activities that lead to insurrection? Or, like the plan to kidnap political officials? Left or Right?

Do privately owned entities have the right to set limits? Can they be held liable? Do they have a social responsibility?

When it comes to what the government can and can’t do it is much more clear imo, with free speech being affirmed.

But the hard Left is Fascist. It has always been Fascist. There is no hard Left in history that did not attempt to squash free speech. They do this because they know their ideas cannot survive the light of day.

The hard right is no different.

They are private companies that are legally exempted from civil liability because they argued they represent multiple views that are in the public interest,

Clearly social media lied to get civil liability exemption. I say remove it immediately. Why should newspapers and broadcast entities be subject to civil liability but social media is not? Does that sound fair to you?

If social media wants to limit open discussion and debate and squash speech they do not like make them open to lawsuits like every other media entity. Problem solved.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Its really kind of simple, don't believe everything you see read or hear, Why take as fact the view point that some stranger posts on face book? IF its medical check with experts in the field your interested in, why ask a foot dr about brain surgery, check & see if its a fact or some ones opinion. No one knows everything.

Left Wingers believe everything without question when it supports their agenda.

 

[.oldschool]

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Left Wingers believe everything without question when it supports their agenda.

And will attack anyone who dares to disagree.

 

[Coyote]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

The entire basis of free speech is accepting the right of those to express ideas you do not like. Social media is squashing speech they do not like. It is totalitarian and deeply anti American.

Totally agree.

BUT...social media is also a privately owned product.

How do you reconcile that?

And where, if at all, do you draw any lines?

The left is terrified of Trump. That is what this is about. They want to silence him and his supporters. They are too stupid to realize that only makes the situation worse.

With all due respect, I think you don’t really see it, at least my perspective as a leftist.

We aren’t terrified of Trump. We are terrified of what he is allowed/enabled to get away with, the way it becomes normalized and rationalizes to the point where an attempted violent overthrow is seen as justified.

I have been reading articles about some of the people involved, and a recurrent theme is a deeply held belief in QAnon...and, I some cases like Ashley Babbit, a deeply troubled personal life. It is a belief that doesn’t just dislike the opposing ideology, but demonizes the people into reservoirs of evil that must be not only defeated but anhilated. That, frankly is frightening.

The difference between someone like Trump and someone like you or me, is his words carry ENORMOUS weight. He doesn’t ever speak as Donald Trump, but as the POTUS (as does any president). And as long president, he can speak as a private citizen because he isn’t.

I do not like a lot of Anifa's speech or BLM for that matter, but I would never advocate attempting to silence them.

I agree, and I feel similar for like Westboro Baptist’s, various independent RW militias, Proud Boys even Nazis. But what happens if tbey are actively planning activities that lead to insurrection? Or, like the plan to kidnap political officials? Left or Right?

Do privately owned entities have the right to set limits? Can they be held liable? Do they have a social responsibility?

When it comes to what the government can and can’t do it is much more clear imo, with free speech being affirmed.

But the hard Left is Fascist. It has always been Fascist. There is no hard Left in history that did not attempt to squash free speech. They do this because they know their ideas cannot survive the light of day.

The hard right is no different.

They are private companies that are legally exempted from civil liability because they argued they represent multiple views that are in the public interest,

Clearly social media lied to get civil liability exemption. I say remove it immediately. Why should newspapers and broadcast entities be subject to civil liability but social media is not? Does that sound fair to you?

If social media wants to limit open discussion and debate and squash speech they do not like make them open to lawsuits like every other media entity. Problem solved.

But did they really? For example...despite claims of censorship...there are many rightwing voices out there, inencumbered. I have also read complaints from the left of censorship. What it seems is not a political ideology being censored but certain expressions of extremism being censored on both ends.

The other thing I wonder, and I have asked this before woith no response...if platforms become liable to lawsuits...don’t you think that will INCREASE censorship?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

The entire basis of free speech is accepting the right of those to express ideas you do not like. Social media is squashing speech they do not like. It is totalitarian and deeply anti American.

Totally agree.

BUT...social media is also a privately owned product.

How do you reconcile that?

And where, if at all, do you draw any lines?

The left is terrified of Trump. That is what this is about. They want to silence him and his supporters. They are too stupid to realize that only makes the situation worse.

With all due respect, I think you don’t really see it, at least my perspective as a leftist.

We aren’t terrified of Trump. We are terrified of what he is allowed/enabled to get away with, the way it becomes normalized and rationalizes to the point where an attempted violent overthrow is seen as justified.

I have been reading articles about some of the people involved, and a recurrent theme is a deeply held belief in QAnon...and, I some cases like Ashley Babbit, a deeply troubled personal life. It is a belief that doesn’t just dislike the opposing ideology, but demonizes the people into reservoirs of evil that must be not only defeated but anhilated. That, frankly is frightening.

The difference between someone like Trump and someone like you or me, is his words carry ENORMOUS weight. He doesn’t ever speak as Donald Trump, but as the POTUS (as does any president). And as long president, he can speak as a private citizen because he isn’t.

I do not like a lot of Anifa's speech or BLM for that matter, but I would never advocate attempting to silence them.

I agree, and I feel similar for like Westboro Baptist’s, various independent RW militias, Proud Boys even Nazis. But what happens if tbey are actively planning activities that lead to insurrection? Or, like the plan to kidnap political officials? Left or Right?

Do privately owned entities have the right to set limits? Can they be held liable? Do they have a social responsibility?

When it comes to what the government can and can’t do it is much more clear imo, with free speech being affirmed.

But the hard Left is Fascist. It has always been Fascist. There is no hard Left in history that did not attempt to squash free speech. They do this because they know their ideas cannot survive the light of day.

The hard right is no different.

They are private companies that are legally exempted from civil liability because they argued they represent multiple views that are in the public interest,

Clearly social media lied to get civil liability exemption. I say remove it immediately. Why should newspapers and broadcast entities be subject to civil liability but social media is not? Does that sound fair to you?

If social media wants to limit open discussion and debate and squash speech they do not like make them open to lawsuits like every other media entity. Problem solved.

....and beyond that, there is always the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law argument. Those who oppose what is actually a LIBERAL principle of free of speech like to make distinctions that these massive social platforms should squash people's ability to express ideas by pointing out the letter of the law, namely that private enterprises are free to do as they wish while ignoring the spirit of the law, namely that a free society should support the free expression of ideas. They are like Pharisees in that, reduced to legalese to mask an agenda that in this case is actually quite fascist. It is only because THEIR agenda is being served by eliminating opposing voices that they support it, as they are not operating according to principle, but merely expedience.

 

[cnm]

I didn't say the Constitution said they had to. I said the reasoning behind freedom of the press only works if they do.

Are you then agreeing the press has never told the truth and further saying freedom of the press has never worked because of that?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I didn't say the Constitution said they had to. I said the reasoning behind freedom of the press only works if they do.

Are you then saying freedom of the press has never worked?

It certainly doesn't today

 

[Coyote]

I didn't say the Constitution said they had to. I said the reasoning behind freedom of the press only works if they do.

Are you then saying freedom of the press has never worked?

It certainly doesn't today

Why do you say that? I ask because today we have an unlimited amount of sources to go to.

 

[WelfareQueen]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

The entire basis of free speech is accepting the right of those to express ideas you do not like. Social media is squashing speech they do not like. It is totalitarian and deeply anti American.

Totally agree.

BUT...social media is also a privately owned product.

How do you reconcile that?

And where, if at all, do you draw any lines?

The left is terrified of Trump. That is what this is about. They want to silence him and his supporters. They are too stupid to realize that only makes the situation worse.

With all due respect, I think you don’t really see it, at least my perspective as a leftist.

We aren’t terrified of Trump. We are terrified of what he is allowed/enabled to get away with, the way it becomes normalized and rationalizes to the point where an attempted violent overthrow is seen as justified.

I have been reading articles about some of the people involved, and a recurrent theme is a deeply held belief in QAnon...and, I some cases like Ashley Babbit, a deeply troubled personal life. It is a belief that doesn’t just dislike the opposing ideology, but demonizes the people into reservoirs of evil that must be not only defeated but anhilated. That, frankly is frightening.

The difference between someone like Trump and someone like you or me, is his words carry ENORMOUS weight. He doesn’t ever speak as Donald Trump, but as the POTUS (as does any president). And as long president, he can speak as a private citizen because he isn’t.

I do not like a lot of Anifa's speech or BLM for that matter, but I would never advocate attempting to silence them.

I agree, and I feel similar for like Westboro Baptist’s, various independent RW militias, Proud Boys even Nazis. But what happens if tbey are actively planning activities that lead to insurrection? Or, like the plan to kidnap political officials? Left or Right?

Do privately owned entities have the right to set limits? Can they be held liable? Do they have a social responsibility?

When it comes to what the government can and can’t do it is much more clear imo, with free speech being affirmed.

But the hard Left is Fascist. It has always been Fascist. There is no hard Left in history that did not attempt to squash free speech. They do this because they know their ideas cannot survive the light of day.

The hard right is no different.

They are private companies that are legally exempted from civil liability because they argued they represent multiple views that are in the public interest,

Clearly social media lied to get civil liability exemption. I say remove it immediately. Why should newspapers and broadcast entities be subject to civil liability but social media is not? Does that sound fair to you?

If social media wants to limit open discussion and debate and squash speech they do not like make them open to lawsuits like every other media entity. Problem solved.

But did they really? For example...despite claims of censorship...there are many rightwing voices out there, inencumbered. I have also read complaints from the left of censorship. What it seems is not a political ideology being censored but certain expressions of extremism being censored on both ends.

The other thing I wonder, and I have asked this before woith no response...if platforms become liable to lawsuits...don’t you think that will INCREASE censorship?

Who defines what is extreme? Can I define it for you and everyone else? Who gets that power? Do two men with massive social media organizations (Zuckerburg and and Jack Dorsey) get to define it for all of us? Why? None of us elected those assholes.

Right wing voices are severely censored on social media. It is not remotely a level playing field. Parler was the exception but now Big Tech is starting to silence them. Coyote, this is very ominous for all of us. I think you see this which is why you started this thread. Giant social media is a threat to all us.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I posted this before today, with them banning Trump I feel like I am in the book 1984, it feels as though the establishment thinks they are bigger than the presidency.

Oh, they most certainly ARE !

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

The entire basis of free speech is accepting the right of those to express ideas you do not like. Social media is squashing speech they do not like. It is totalitarian and deeply anti American.

Totally agree.

BUT...social media is also a privately owned product.

How do you reconcile that?

And where, if at all, do you draw any lines?

The left is terrified of Trump. That is what this is about. They want to silence him and his supporters. They are too stupid to realize that only makes the situation worse.

With all due respect, I think you don’t really see it, at least my perspective as a leftist.

We aren’t terrified of Trump. We are terrified of what he is allowed/enabled to get away with, the way it becomes normalized and rationalizes to the point where an attempted violent overthrow is seen as justified.

I have been reading articles about some of the people involved, and a recurrent theme is a deeply held belief in QAnon...and, I some cases like Ashley Babbit, a deeply troubled personal life. It is a belief that doesn’t just dislike the opposing ideology, but demonizes the people into reservoirs of evil that must be not only defeated but anhilated. That, frankly is frightening.

The difference between someone like Trump and someone like you or me, is his words carry ENORMOUS weight. He doesn’t ever speak as Donald Trump, but as the POTUS (as does any president). And as long president, he can speak as a private citizen because he isn’t.

I do not like a lot of Anifa's speech or BLM for that matter, but I would never advocate attempting to silence them.

I agree, and I feel similar for like Westboro Baptist’s, various independent RW militias, Proud Boys even Nazis. But what happens if tbey are actively planning activities that lead to insurrection? Or, like the plan to kidnap political officials? Left or Right?

Do privately owned entities have the right to set limits? Can they be held liable? Do they have a social responsibility?

When it comes to what the government can and can’t do it is much more clear imo, with free speech being affirmed.

But the hard Left is Fascist. It has always been Fascist. There is no hard Left in history that did not attempt to squash free speech. They do this because they know their ideas cannot survive the light of day.

The hard right is no different.

They are private companies that are legally exempted from civil liability because they argued they represent multiple views that are in the public interest,

Clearly social media lied to get civil liability exemption. I say remove it immediately. Why should newspapers and broadcast entities be subject to civil liability but social media is not? Does that sound fair to you?

If social media wants to limit open discussion and debate and squash speech they do not like make them open to lawsuits like every other media entity. Problem solved.

Sure....and give the Right a level playing field ?

Are you crazy?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Right wing voices are severely censored on social media. It is not remotely a level playing field. Parler was the exception but now Big Tech is starting to silence them. Coyote, this is very ominous for all of us. I think you see this which is why you started this thread. Giant social media is a threat to all us.

They think it is the perfect playing field.

They never felt better about it. they're incensed that you disagree.

This is the moral narcissism I've mentioned previously.

 

[ESay]

Do privately owned entities have the right to set limits? Can they be held liable? Do they have a social responsibility

Basically yes, private entities should have this right. The owner of some property should have a say whether they want to use their property for providing soneone with their services or not.

 

[cnm]

It certainly doesn't today

But you conceded the press has never told the truth, right here,no?

We have never had an honest press. If you ever have the time read what Thomas Jefferson said about the press and you will find it is no different today than it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. No where in the Constitution does it say that freedom of the press also includes the one condition that only the truth is published..

I didn't say the Constitution said they had to. I said the reasoning behind freedom of the press only works if they do.

But if the reasoning behind freedom of the press has previously worked because the press told the truth, when was that?

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Freedom of Speech has it limits and Social Media has the right to regulate what is being expressed on their sites...

I am one that believe in allowing the stupid to express their opinion but as the older I get the more I want the stupid to sign their actual name to what they write so society will know which person we should shun and ignore because hate speech no matter which side it is from should never be tolerated...

Facebook and Twitter and those like them including the USMB have terms of agreement that you must obey Or lose your access to their sites and how many times have I seen this site delete or alter threads and posts because it violates the terms of agreement, so Freedom of Speech has it limits.

Something you may not know is when I was younger and spent my days on the Slate message boards I was one poster than would push the limits of free speech and got banned for using a vulgar word and calling the site moderator a Nazi and as I look back at it I have to say the Slate had every right to ban me and regulate my speech.

Yes, we would want the freedom to express ourselves and speak freely but we should also conduct ourselves in a manner that many times is not conducted.

Twitter banning of Trump is a dangerous one but is their right along with Facebook and others and I support them on this move but they must hold everyone to the same standard which they never do and that is why many of Trump voters cry out about what Twitter, Facebook and others do...

In the end as adults we must learn to control our fingers from writing something we normally would not say and police ourselves because sooner or later if we do not then the Nanny State will do it for us and then they take it to the extreme and we loose a freedom we have enjoyed all our life...

I tried to keep my response clean as possible because of where this was posted but let me give one warning and that is those that want to freely speak must remember your right has limits and those that want to control everyone content must remember that this could also be used against you when your enemy gain power so be careful for what you wish for...

As for the media, well tabloid news sells and true journalism has never lived...

 

[cnm]

if we cant agree on the fact that; "something that cant be proven in a courtroom, cant be proven", then i dont know what we can...

This can’t be emphasized enough.

That is more literal than you possibly intended...

 

[Blues Man]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

no social media service can violate your first amendment rights.

 

[Blues Man]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

The entire basis of free speech is accepting the right of those to express ideas you do not like. Social media is squashing speech they do not like. It is totalitarian and deeply anti American.

The left is terrified of Trump. That is what this is about. They want to silence him and his supporters. They are too stupid to realize that only makes the situation worse.

I do not like a lot of Anifa's speech or BLM for that matter, but I would never advocate attempting to silence them.

But the hard Left is Fascist. It has always been Fascist. There is no hard Left in history that did not attempt to squash free speech. They do this because they know their ideas cannot survive the light of day.

the first amendment does not protect you from private parties only from the government making laws that prohibit free speech.

An individual or business can stop you from speaking on their private property and it is 100% legal.

 

[alpine]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

no social media service can violate your first amendment rights.

how can a social media service violate your first amendment rights?...
they would need the power to arrest people to be able to do that...
they didnt prevent anyone from speaking their mind...
they just dont want these people on their platform...
because these agitators use the service against the terms and conditions...
thats all...